|← Grand Central Station||Womens Rights →|
The case was between Lanier - the plaintiff- appellate and city of Woodburn-defendant-appellant. The legal issue was to determine the constitutionality of the City of Woodburn's drug and alcohol policy making it compulsory for applicants of choice for city positions to take and pass a drug test before being employed at city. The court ruled that the Woodburn's policy, as applied, was unconstitutional since the City could not show a special need to test a potential page for alcohol and drugs, and affirm on this basis (Walsh 163).
The City had to show that it had special need for drug test because the Woodburn's personnel policies and procedures manual already provides for a broad investigation of a prospective applicant's employment and criminal records for positions acknowledged as security sensitive before they are employed. Besides, the appellate had no known criminal or drug use history. City failed to demonstrate the special need because there was no sufficient warrant, suspicion, or evidence to outweigh reasonable expectations of the applicant's privacy.
City could be able to drug-test candidates for the position of library director and security guards because these are considered sensitive to the security of City as outlined in the personnel policies and procedures manual. Nevertheless, the ruling on the Lanier does not extend to all other positions. She did not show that the policy could never be constitutionally applied to any City position (Walsh 163).
The plaintiff refused to take the drug test because she considers it unnecessary, expensive, degrading, and humiliating. It means that one is being suspected of using drugs and it amounts to contravention of civil liberties guaranteed in the constitution. Personally, I would not take the drug test. Elana Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free School District
The legal issue in this case is unfair denial of tenure of Back (plaintiff - appellate) as a school psychologist at the Hudson Union Free School District (defendant -appellant). The plaintiff claims she was terminated because she was a young mother and her employer perceived it that this would affect her full devotion to her job; this termination, she argued, contravened her legitimate liberty of equal protection. The defendants challenge that Back was terminated for the reason that she lacked organizational and interpersonal skills. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff that making use of motherhood stereotypes of female employees constitutes gender unfairness under the clause of Equal Protection.
The evidence of sex stereotyping was the discriminatory remarks her employers made about Back. After resuming working from a 3 month maternity leave, her female boss made discriminatory remarks, such as enquiring how she was scheduling on spacing her offspring, and advising her not to give birth again until the supervisor retires. The plaintiff also stated that her supervisor told her to hold on until her son joined kindergarten for her to have another child, and expressed concerns about Back's capability to work since she had young children at home and it was not achievable for her to be an excellent mother and still keep her job.
This is a sex-plus case because the ruling gives gender discrimination a new whole meaning to include stereotyping from the same sex as shown by the female supervisor. This case is really a plus in the fight against gender discrimination. Besides, while the case occurred in the environment of an elementary school, the plaintiff decision has significant implications for other sectors, such as higher education, as well.
Back was discriminated against because based on the evidence provided, she was highly qualified for the job and her performance was outstanding. The same supervisors constantly gave her excellent evaluations. She scored highly in all her annual evaluations; they gauged her, based on the performance tools as the standard measure of the best tenure in Hastings.
The college should have developed official and lawful occupation-and-family institutional policies, in discussion with staff members, instead of making individual informal arrangements.
They should also have familiarized administrators and supervisors on pertinent work-family laws and policies. Lastly, the supervisors should have assessed Back's capability to perform the assigned tasks after her maternity leave without consideration of personal traits or conditions.